They de facto are because they only place cameras in public places and on public land by contract with the government in one form or another; be it with a treasonous sheriff or a treasonous state executive and legislature. The public would not be talking about Flock if they had not worked to create a treasonous surveillance state and instead only did things like monitored truck movements in a logistics depot. The private contracts for things like HOA neighborhoods and corporations, e.g., big box store loss prevention and customer data tracking, but those’s are a totally different issue that have nothing to do with the use of public funds and power for mass surveillance.

This feels a lot like "Yeah, but we'll do it anyways until a court makes us stop; because the profit is more than the fine"

but thry're not literally the government and the relevant laws only affect the literal government.

No, there is legal precedent that private companies who perform government services are subject to the same laws.

This is generally not the case.